| This issue was originally printed on yellow paper. |
Florida has the most repressive ballot access laws for third parties and independent candidates in the U.S. The requirements to get on the ballot (for non-presidential statewide office) are so severe that no independent, and only one third party, have ever qualified. The requirements for a party to remain qualified are so difficult that no third party has ever come close to meeting them.
Last month, Common Cause of Florida agreed to fight for more tolerant ballot access laws. The organization's professional lobbyist has already started working to find sponsors for a proposed ballot reform bill. The ACLU of Florida (which has helped with this in many states in the past) is also working on the project. Anyone who desires to help with this effort should get in touch with Common Cause, 704 W. Madison St., Tallahassee Fl 32304, (904) 222-3883. Common Cause and the ACLU can't do all the work by themselves, and it will take a great deal of energy from everyone who cares about the issue, to gain success.
Also last month, Labor Party Advocates became part of a coalition to improve the Colorado ballot access laws. Labor Party Advocates is four years old, and has the support of many AFL-CIO leaders; but until now, it has never engaged in any activity to improve ballot access laws.
Colorado ballot access laws for independent candidates for most offices are not severely difficult, but Colorado lacks any procedure for a new party to qualify itself, and requires a separate petition for each new party candidate, so that a new party which wished to compete in all 1994 partisan elections in Colorado would need 279,057 valid signatures! By comparison, in next-door Utah, only 500 signatures are required for this purpose. Also, Colorado has a wildly excessive signature requirement for independent and third party candidates for county office in sparsely-populated counties: a petition of 20% of the last vote cast.
Labor Party Advocates joined the Colorado branch of COFOE (nationally, COFOE stands for "Coalition for Free & Open Elections", but the Colorado branch prefers "Coalition for Fair & Open Elections"). Colorado COFOE representatives have scheduled several appointments with state legislators, and are optimistic that a ballot reform bill will be introduced early next year.
To contact Colorado COFOE, write David Aitken at 1240 Ogden St., #4, Denver Co 80218, or telephone (303) 831-4334.
One influential organization which is concerned with fair elections, but which has never showed interest in ballot access laws, is the League of Women Voters. However, even the League may be ready to examine the issue.
Becky Cain, President of the League, said in a November 29 press conference that the League agrees with Alexander Hamilton that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Popular liberty should be perfectly pure, and the most unbounded liberty allowed." The press conference was timed to coincide with arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court over congressional term limits.
Another important large organization, Ross Perot's United We Stand America, may also soon be working for fairer ballot access laws. Ross Perot now seems to believe that it would be good for the U.S. to have a new major party of the center, even though he doesn't wish to be its 1996 presidential candidate. Associates of Perot are examining ballot access laws which relate to new parties, and agree that they need improvement.
Good ballot access bills are likely to be introduced next year in states other than Florida and Colorado:
1. Arizona: Activists are seeking a sponsor to ease the requirements for a party to remain qualified. Arizona is one of only three western states (the others are Washington and Colorado) which has no qualified third parties.
2. Georgia: Republican House member Brian Joyce has stated that he plans to introduce a bill to ease ballot access. Georgia's requirements for third party candidates for the U.S. House are so strict, they have never been used, and they have existed since 1943.
3. Iowa: the Natural Law Party is seeking a sponsor for a bill to let voters register other than just "Democrat", "Republican", or "Independent".
4. Maine: Secretary of State Bill Diamond has promised the Green Party to ask the legislature to make it easier for a party to remain on the ballot.
5. North Dakota: Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger plans to ask the legislature to restore a law, which was repealed in 1989, which lets independent presidential candidates choose a partisan label (other than just the word "Independent"), which appears on the petition and the ballot. He also plans to ask the legislature to repeal a law which exempts the Democratic and Republican Parties from having to show any support, in order to remain on the ballot (whereas all other parties must poll at least 5% for Governor, in order to remain on the ballot).
6. South Carolina: Representative Donny Wilder plans to re-introduce his bill, to legalize write-ins for president at the general election. South Carolina is one of three states which permits write-ins generally, but bans them for president.
On November 29, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, no. 93-1456. This is the much-publicized case over the constitutionality of an Arkansas law which bans long-term congressional incumbents from the ballot.
Anyone who wishes a comprehensive description of the 90-minute long hearing, should see the December 13 issue of U.S. Law Week, Supreme Court version. This weekly publication is in almost all law libraries.
From their questions and comments, Supreme Court Justices seem to feel that the major question in the case is whether states are permitted to add to the congressional qualifications contained in the Constitution. Article I lists age, residency and citizenship qualifications; there are a few other qualifications scattered around other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not specify whether states are free to add additional qualifications.
The Joseph Story Tradition
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who lived from 1779 to 1845 and who was simultaneously a Justice and a Harvard professor of law, wrote extensively on the question of whether states can add to the constitutional qualifications for Congress. His scholarly writings have influenced courts for over 150 years. Story made a strong case that the states may not add to the Constitutional qualifications.
Because courts followed Story's teachings, ex-felons and felons have always retained the right to run for federal office, even though they couldn't vote. Hence, it was impossible for the states to keep Eugene Debs, the 1920 Socialist Party candidate for president, off the ballot, even though he was serving a 10-year term for violating the Espionage Act. Similarly, Vincent Hallinan, Progressive Party presidential candidate in 1952, was not kept off ballots, even though he was in federal prison. Also, it has been impossible for states to require congressional candidates to live in the district they seek to represent.
The Qualifications Clause and Write-Ins
As ballot access laws became more restrictive, courts always managed to square Story's theory with ballot access laws by noting that anyone could run as a write-in candidate. Thus, in 1984 the 2nd Circuit upheld a Democratic Party rule that no one could get on the primary ballot (even for Congress) who didn't enjoy some support at the party's convention, by pointing out that the plaintiff-candidate could always be a write-in candidate. The 2nd Circuit's reasoning was crystal-clear: "The test to determine whether or not a 'restriction' amounts to a 'qualification' within the meaning of Article I is whether the candidate could be elected if his name were written in by a sufficient number of electors." (emphasis added).
The people who wrote the Arkansas law were aware of these precedents, and that's why they included a provision that any long-term incumbent was free to run as a write-in candidate.
The authors of the law were willing to acknowledge that Justice Story was correct on Qualifications, and wrote the law to avoid a conflict with the Qualifications Theory. However, in Court, supporters of the Arkansas law argued that Story was wrong.
The Oral Argument
Each side was represented by two attorneys. The law was defended by Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant, and John G. Kester of U.S. Term Limits. The law was attacked by League of Women Voters attorney Louis Cohen and U.S. Solicitor General Drew S. Days.
The two attorneys who defended the law spoke first. They both tried to be completely consistent. This forced them to say that a state may have any restriction in its congressional ballot access laws that doesn't violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Bryant, in response to a question, even said that the states were free to provide that only half the votes for an incumbent should be counted. Both Bryant and Kester said that states would be free to provide that candidates over the age of 70 could be barred from the ballot. Many justices seemed skeptical.
Cohen, the first attorney to attack the law, defended the Story theory that states cannot add to the qualifications. He did acknowledge that the write-in loophole means that, technically, the Arkansas law does not add to the qualifications. But he said that since the state could not add to the qualifications directly, neither can it do so "indirectly". Justice Stevens pointed out that Cohen was contradicting his own written brief, because the brief argued that the law did represent a Qualification. But no Justice quizzed Cohen about his assertion that an "indirect" additional state qualification is the same as a "direct" one.
This is significant, and it seems to indicate that the Court doesn't agree with the First Circuit (and several State Supreme Courts), that a "qualification" is something that would prevent even a write-in candidate from being sworn in, if he or she received the most votes of any candidate. Instead, the Court seems to believe that anything which keeps someone off the ballot is a qualification.
The big problem with Cohen's argument is that it is difficult to square it with all the Supreme Court's ballot access precedents upholding state restrictions, as applied to congressional candidates. Cohen tried to get around it by saying that the ballot access decisions only upheld laws which are necessary if we are to have orderly elections. Unfortunately, the Court didn't seem to quibble with this analysis. We'll know for sure by July, 1995.
1. Arizona: on Dec. 13, the 9th circuit heard Hancock v Symington, 93-16691. At issue is a law which says that, on election day, the two largest political parties (but no one else) are entitled to a free list of voters who have voted as of mid-day. The hearing was before Judges Thomas Tang, Mary Schroeder, and Stephen Reinhardt, all Carter appointees. The hearing went well for Hancock, who was an independent candidate when he brought the lawsuit back in 1990. However, it is possible the Court will say that he lacks standing.
2. California: On November 16, the State Court of Appeals held a hearing in Green Party v Eu, over whether the First Amendment protects the right of a political party to "close" its primary for certain offices, and to decide for itself whether to have "None of the Above" on its own primary ballots. A decision will be out before January 17, 1995. The Green Party is cautiously optimistic.
3. Colorado: (See also this update.) On November 29, federal judge Richard Matsch, a Nixon appointee, ruled two election laws unconstitutional: (1) a law that initiative petitioners must wear a badge bearing their name and one of these two terms, "Volunteer Circulator" or "Paid Circulator"; (2) a law that proponents of an initiative must file monthly reports, giving the name, business address and residence address of anyone who is paid to circulate a petition and the amount of money that person received in that month. American Constitutional Law Foundation v Meyer, 93-M-1467. The state is appealing.
4. Delaware: On December 1, the Socialist Workers Party dropped a promising election lawsuit, which had been pending in federal court, Colton v Harper. The issue was whether a party like the Socialist Workers Party can be forced to reveal the names of its supporters, as a condition for appearing on the ballot.
Delaware is the only state in which the only method for a new political party to get on the ballot is to register a certain number of voters. Delaware registration records are open to the public. In the past, the SWP has won special privacy protection from the U.S. Supreme Court, since its supporters have a history of being harassed. The party allegedly dropped the lawsuit because its members didn't wish to go through the ordeal of being deposed.
5. Georgia: On September 22, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Adam Poppell, an independent candidate for the state legislature, should not be on the ballot, because his wife had notarized most of the petition sheets and she herself had signed one of the petitions (however, the petition she signed was notarized by someone else). Poppell v Lanier, 448 SE 2d 194.
6. Illinois (1): On September 30, the Illinois Court of Appeals, First District, ruled that petitions can be circulated by people who have moved and who haven't yet reregistered at their new address. Bass v Hamblet, 641 NE 2d 14. The Second District of the Illinois Court of Appeals had made a similar ruling earlier this year in Whelan v DuPage County, 629 NE 2d 842.
Illinois (2): On October 31, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Populist Party of Illinois, over whether its candidates for Cook County Commissioner should be on the ballot or not. The party had circulated a single petition for all its candidates for County Commissioner in Cook County, without specifying which district each one was running in, although this information was on the Statement of Candidacy that each candidate filed. Carter v Orr, no. 77951. The Board of Elections sustained a challenge to the candidates, even though Illinois law requires that challengers must live in the district, and in this instance, there were challengers from only two of the seventeen districts.
7. Louisiana: On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the Louisiana "racial gerrymandering" case, Louisiana v Hays, no. 94-627. The lower 3-judge federal court had ruled that it is unconstitutional for a state to use race to determine congressional district boundaries. Similar cases which have already been decided by lower courts in Georgia, Texas and North Carolina, are also on their way to the Supreme Court.
8. Minnesota: On September 1, the 8th circuit invalidated several Minnesota campaign finance laws. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v Holahan, 34 F 3d 1356. The court ruled that a $100 limit on contributions to and from political committees was so low as to violate the First Amendment.
The Court also invalidated another law, which provided for increased public funding for any candidate if independent expenditures are made to oppose that candidate. The judges were Pasco Bowman, Joseph E. Stevens (Reagan appointees) and James Loken (a Bush appointee).
9. South Carolina: On November 28, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the Libertarian Party in Greene v Election Commission, 94-622. The issue was what remedy should be ordered, when a candidate loses an election by six votes, and eleven of his supporters had been erroneously turned away at the polling place. The lower courts had said that the voters should have been more insistent that they be allowed to vote, but that since they weren't, there was no remedy.
10. federal law: There will be a hearing in the 2nd circuit on January 12 in Fulani v FCC, 94-4100, over whether ABC-TV violated the Equal Time Rule in 1992, when it gave Ross Perot an hour to answer questions from a TV audience, while denying time to Lenora Fulani.
The Illinois Board of Elections recently ruled that the Libertarian Party is a qualified party for statewide office. The state will conduct a primary for it (for statewide office only) in 1996, including a presidential primary.
The Nov. 15 B.A.N. said that the 1996 petition for Iowa is 1,000 signatures; it is really 1,500. Also, the list of states in which at least one third party or independent candidate debated both of his major party opponents should have included New Mexico & Nevada (Gov.) and Utah (U.S. Senate).
| Dem. | Rep. | Indp/Misc. | Libt | Green | Patriot | oth(1) | oth(2) | oth(3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | 59,782 | 78,212 | 186,976 | ? | 2,558 | ? | 12,936 | -- | -- |
| Arizona | 873,413 | 933,642 | 260,404 | 7,574 | ? | ? | -- | -- | -- |
| Calif. | 7,219,635 | 5,472,391 | 1,565,511 | 69,951 | 86,198 | 466 | 242,510 | 66,955 | 167 |
| Colorado | 668,892 | 696,566 | 666,845 | 1,945 | 72 | ? | 18 | -- | -- |
| Conn. | 675,129 | 465,372 | 710,469 | ? | ? | ? | 2,017 | ? | ? |
| Delaware | 150,716 | 126,813 | 61,689 | 466 | 7 | 130 | 182 | 168 | 10 |
| Dt. Col. | 286,273 | 26,830 | 45,606 | ? | ? | ? | 4,181 | -- | -- |
| Florida | 3,245,518 | 2,747,074 | 546,078 | 3,585 | 453 | 34,877 | 212 | 81 | 72 |
| Iowa | 581,150 | 586,781 | 463,195 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Kansas | 404,511 | 582,672 | 321,504 | 5,508 | ? | ? | -- | -- | -- |
| Kentcky | 1,398,854 | 644,709 | 88,589 | ? | ? | ? | -- | -- | -- |
| Louis'na | 1,566,905 | 433,362 | 221,063 | 360 | 38 | 12 | 29 | 24 | 2 |
| Maine | 306,145 | 268,862 | 343,481 | -- | ? | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Maryland | 1,442,927 | 694,982 | 226,557 | (es)2,700 | ? | ? | -- | -- | -- |
| Mass. | 1,224,887 | 396,344 | 1,548,634 | 333 | 40 | 13 | 171 | 54 | 1 |
| Nebraska | 365,872 | 456,399 | 97,050 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Nevada | 270,779 | 259,259 | 95,888 | 2,847 | ? | ? | 4,229 | 135 | 103 |
| N. Ham. | 210,865 | 252,199 | 198,627 | 3,330 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| N. Jersey | 1,109,565 | 851,798 | 1,891,210 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| N. Mex. | 411,431 | 243,210 | 59,004 | ? | ? | ? | -- | -- | -- |
| N. York | 4,140,794 | 2,708,791 | 2,546,550 | -- | -- | -- | 134,539 | 72,777 | 34,211 |
| No. Car. | 2,129,159 | 1,191,878 | 313,366 | 1,472 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Okla. | 1,282,173 | 699,491 | 63,457 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Oregon | 773,052 | 649,362 | 356,894 | (es)7,000 | (es)200 | (es)2,000 | -- | -- | -- |
| Pennsyl. | 2,955,594 | 2,534,087 | 381,315 | 4,408 | ? | 3,689 | -- | -- | -- |
| So. Dak. | 176,881 | 212,544 | 41,979 | 469 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| W. Va. | 576,448 | 269,217 | 38,650 | ? | ? | ? | -- | -- | -- |
| Wyo. | 79,326 | 135,245 | 23,212 | 53 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| TOTAL | 34,586,676 | 24,618,092 | 13,363,803 | 109,001 | 89,566 | 41,187 | "Other" columns = 575,784 | ||
| PERCENT | 47.13 | 33.55 | 18.21 | .15 | .12 | .06 | "Other" columns = .78% | ||
The parties in the "Other(1)" column are: Alaska Independence in Alaska, American Independent in California (affiliated with US Taxpayers), Populist in Colorado, A Connecticut Party in Connecticut, A Delaware Party in Delaware, Statehood in D.C., US Taxpayers in Florida (both factions), Socialist in Louisiana, Interdependent in Massachusetts, Independent American in Nevada (affiliated with US Taxpayers), Conservative in New York, and Constitutional in Pennsylvania.
The parties in the "Other(2)" column are: Peace & Freedom in California, Concerned Citizens in Connecticut, US Taxpayers in Delaware, Populist in Florida and Louisiana, Socialist in Massachusetts, Populist in Nevada, and Liberal in New York.
The parties in the "Other(3)" column are: Natural Law in California, Independence Party in Connecticut, Prohibition in Delaware, Socialist Workers in Florida, Natural Law in Louisiana, Prohibition in Massachusetts, Natural Law in Nevada, and Right to Life in New York. All data is for the 1994 general election, except Maine, where it is for the 1994 primary.
States not mentioned above do not provide for voters to register into parties, when they register to vote. Rhode Island registration forms ask the voter to choose a party, but the state does not keep track of how many people join any party.
A dash means that the voters are not permitted to register into a particular party, since the particular party is not, or was not, qualified in that state, and the state won't let people register into unqualified parties. A question mark means that the state has not tabulated the number of registrants in a particular party. New Mexico missing data will be available next issue.
Totals two years ago were: Dem. 35,616,630 (47.76%), Rep. 24,590,383 (32.97%), Indp. & misc. 13,617,167 (18.26%), Green 102,557 (.14%), Libertarian 100,394 (.13%), other parties 554,668 (.74%). Press reports that the proportion of independent voters is higher in 1994 than in the 1980's is true, but it is not true that independent registration in 1994 is higher than it was in 1992. Of course, these totals are only from the 27 states (plus D.C.) in which the voter registration form asks for partisan preference; it does not include the entire U.S.
| Rep. | Dem. | Libt. | US Tax | Patriot | Green | NatLaw | SocWkr | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ariz. | 600,999 | 442,510 | 75,493 | 58 | |||||
| Calif. | 3,811,232 | 3,976,885 | 178,868 | 142,622 | 140,412 | ? | 255,004 | ||
| Conn. | 334,833 | 723,842 | ? | 20,989 | |||||
| Del. | 110,986 | 84,491 | 3,526 | ||||||
| Florida | 2,894,726 | 1,210,412 | 1,038 | ||||||
| Hawaii | 86,320 | 256,189 | 14,393 | ||||||
| Indiana | 1,039,625 | 470,799 | 17,343 | 15,801 | |||||
| Maine | 308,244 | 186,042 | 17,205 | ||||||
| Maryld. | 565,895 | 809,115 | ? | 68 | |||||
| Mass. | 894,000 | 1,265,997 | 14,484 | ? | 4,776 | ||||
| Mich. | 1,579,744 | 1,302,411 | 128,117 | 15,337 | ? | 20,796 | |||
| Minn. | 869,653 | 781,860 | 95,400 | 5,054 | 2,428 | 15,920 | |||
| Miss. | 418,333 | 189,752 | |||||||
| Mo. | 1,009,094 | 678,437 | 56,580 | 6 | |||||
| Mont. | 218,542 | 131,845 | |||||||
| Nebr. | 260,668 | 317,297 | |||||||
| Nevada | 156,020 | 193,804 | 5,964 | 5,450 | 6,666 | ||||
| N.J. | 966,244 | 1,033,487 | 14,042 | 3,249 | 3,606 | 34,259 | |||
| N.M. | 213,025 | 249,989 | 182 | ||||||
| N.Y. | 1,988,308 | 2,646,541 | 17,991 | 26,650 | 14,892 | 95,954 | |||
| No.D. | 99,390 | 137,157 | |||||||
| Ohio | 1,818,127 | 1,329,868 | 262,920 | 166 | 282 | ||||
| Okla. | 542,390 | 392,488 | 47,552 | ||||||
| Penn. | 1,729,751 | 1,642,563 | 58,769 | 69,821 | |||||
| R.I. | 222,856 | 122,532 | |||||||
| Tn full | 834,226 | 623,164 | 22,962 | ||||||
| Tn short | 885,998 | 565,930 | 2,219 | 11,688 | |||||
| Texas | 2,604,218 | 1,639,615 | 36,107 | ||||||
| Utah | 357,297 | 146,938 | 1,514 | 13,555 | |||||
| Vt. | 106,505 | 85,868 | 709 | 16,982 | |||||
| Va. | 882,213 | 938,376 | ? | 235,437 | |||||
| Wash. | 947,821 | 752,352 | ? | ||||||
| W.Va. | 290,495 | 130,441 | |||||||
| Wis. | 636,989 | 912,622 | 15,439 | ? | |||||
| Wyo. | 118,754 | 79,287 | 3,669 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 29,569,295 | 25,884,976 | 640,785 | 410,992 | 207,672 | 140,412 | 74,120 | 23,644 | 761,101 |
The "Other" column consists of: California, Peace & Freedom; Connecticut, Concerned Citizens; Maine, independent; Massachusetts, LaRouche independent; Michigan, Workers World; Minnesota, Grassroots; Nevada, independent; New Jersey, Conservative Party 9,387, three independents 24,872; New York, Right to Life; Tennessee, independents; Utah, Indp. Pty 9,550, American 2,543, Indp. Amer. Pty 1,462; Vermont, two independents 15,606, Grassroots 1,416, Liberty Union 1,376; Virginia, independent. The small numbers in Az, Md, Mo & Ohio are for declared write-in independent candidates.
In Connecticut, the Democratic column includes 280,049 votes cast for the Democratic nominee under A Connecticut Party's line. In New York, the Democratic column includes 118,154 votes cast for the Democratic nominee under the Liberal Party label; the Republican column includes 276,548 votes under the Conservative Party label. The Delaware and Pennsylvania figures are unofficial. "Patriot" column includes some state parties which are called "Independence" or "Independence Fusion".
The chart above does not include scattering write-in votes, or tabulations in some states of the number of blank votes. All of the U.S. Senate elections above were regularly-scheduled, except for Oklahoma and one Tennessee seat. The "Total" above includes only one entry for each party for Tennessee; otherwise Tennessee voters would be counted twice in the national totals. "?" means the party had a write-in candidate but the state hasn't tabulated those votes.
Future issues of B.A.N. will give carry 1994 charts for Governor, U.S. House and state legislature.
| Rep. | Dem. | Libt. | US Tax | Patriot | Green | NatLaw | SocWkr | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ariz. | 53.71 | 39.54 | 6.75 | w | |||||
| Calif. | 44.81 | 46.76 | 2.10 | 1.68 | 1.65 | w | 3.00 | ||
| Conn. | 31.01 | 67.04 | w | 1.94 | |||||
| Del. | 55.77 | 42.46 | 1.77 | ||||||
| Florida | 70.50 | 29.48 | w | ||||||
| Hawaii | 24.19 | 71.78 | 4.03 | ||||||
| Indiana | 67.35 | 30.50 | 1.12 | 1.02 | |||||
| Maine | 60.26 | 36.37 | 3.36 | ||||||
| Maryld. | 41.15 | 58.84 | w | w | |||||
| Mass. | 41.02 | 58.09 | .66 | w | .23 | ||||
| Mich. | 51.86 | 42.75 | 4.21 | .50 | w | .68 | |||
| Minn. | 49.12 | 44.17 | 5.39 | .29 | .14 | .90 | |||
| Miss. | 68.80 | 31.20 | |||||||
| Mo. | 57.86 | 38.90 | 3.24 | w | |||||
| Mont. | 62.37 | 37.63 | |||||||
| Nebr. | 45.10 | 54.90 | |||||||
| Nevada | 42.41 | 52.68 | 1.62 | 1.48 | 1.81 | ||||
| N.J. | 47.02 | 50.29 | .68 | .16 | .18 | 1.67 | |||
| N.M. | 45.99 | 53.97 | w | ||||||
| N.Y. | 41.51 | 55.24 | .38 | .56 | .31 | 2.00 | |||
| No.D. | 42.02 | 57.98 | |||||||
| Ohio | 53.30 | 38.98 | 7.71 | w | w | ||||
| Okla. | 55.21 | 39.95 | 4.84 | ||||||
| Penn. | 49.41 | 46.92 | 1.68 | 1.99 | |||||
| R.I. | 64.52 | 35.48 | |||||||
| Tn full | 56.35 | 42.10 | 1.55 | ||||||
| Tn short | 60.44 | 38.61 | .15 | .80 | |||||
| Texas | 60.85 | 38.31 | .84 | ||||||
| Utah | 68.80 | 28.30 | .29 | 2.61 | |||||
| Vt. | 50.70 | 40.88 | .34 | 8.08 | |||||
| Va. | 42.91 | 45.64 | w | 11.45 | |||||
| Wash. | 55.75 | 44.25 | w | ||||||
| W.Va. | 30.99 | 69.01 | |||||||
| Wis. | 40.70 | 58.31 | .99 | w | |||||
| Wyo. | 58.87 | 39.31 | 1.82 |
The designation "w" in this chart means write-in candidate (percentages were not figured for write-in candidates).